Simulações das concentrações de nitrato e potássio na solução do solo utilizando modelos paramétricos e o Hydrus-2D

Conceição, Beatriz Santos; Coelho, Eugênio Ferreira; Silva Junior, João José da; Sant’Ana, José Antonio do Vale; Martinez, Mauro Aparecido

Resumo

O objetivo deste trabalho foi estimar a concentração de nitrato e potássio na solução do solo, em lisímetro de drenagem com o uso dos modelos matemáticos desenvolvidos por Vogeler et al. (1996)VOGELER, I.; CLOTIER, B. E.; GREEN, S. R.; SCOTTER, D. R.; TILLMAN, R. W. Characterizing water and solute movement by TDR and disk permeametry. Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 60, n. 1, p. 5-12, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000010004x
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.036159... e Muñoz-Carpena et al. (2005)MUÑOZ-CARPENA, R.; REGALADO, C. M.; RITTER, A.; ALVAREZ-BENEDÍ, J.; SOCORRO, A. R. TDR estimation of electrical conductivity and saline solute concentration in a volcanic soil. Geoderma, v. 124, p. 399-413, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.... e do modelo computacional Hydrus-2D e comparar os dados simulados e observados usando parâmetros estatísticos. A cultivar utilizada para o estudo foi a ‘Prata Gorutuba’. As parcelas experimentais foram seis lisímetros de drenagem. A fertirrigação foi realizada semanalmente. Os modelos matemáticos desenvolvidos por Vogeler et al. (1996)VOGELER, I.; CLOTIER, B. E.; GREEN, S. R.; SCOTTER, D. R.; TILLMAN, R. W. Characterizing water and solute movement by TDR and disk permeametry. Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 60, n. 1, p. 5-12, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000010004x
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.036159... e Muñoz-Carpena et al. (2005)MUÑOZ-CARPENA, R.; REGALADO, C. M.; RITTER, A.; ALVAREZ-BENEDÍ, J.; SOCORRO, A. R. TDR estimation of electrical conductivity and saline solute concentration in a volcanic soil. Geoderma, v. 124, p. 399-413, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.... , foram utilizados para determinar a concentração específica de um determinado íon (Ci). O software Hydrus foi utilizado para simular a dinâmica de nutrientes. As concentrações de nitrato e potássio na solução do solo, estimados por meio do modelo de Vogeler et al. (1996)VOGELER, I.; CLOTIER, B. E.; GREEN, S. R.; SCOTTER, D. R.; TILLMAN, R. W. Characterizing water and solute movement by TDR and disk permeametry. Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 60, n. 1, p. 5-12, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000010004x
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.036159... adaptado para a relação CEw-Ci do tipo linear e simulado pelo modelo Hydrus apresentou uma caracterização aceitável da distribuição desses nutrientes.

Palavras-chave:
bananeira; fertirrigação; lisimetro; modelagem; nutrientes

[1] ^*Corresponding author: João José da Silva Junior, e-mail: jjsjunior@unb.br

Characteristics	Sandy-clay soil	Sandy soil
pH	5.0	7.6
P (mg d^-3)	2	28
K (cmolc dm^-3)	0.06	0.06
Ca (cmolc dm^-3)	0.68	1.41
Mg (cmolc dm^-3)	0.46	0.30
Ca+Mg (cmolc dm^-3)	1.14	1.71
Al (cmolc dm^-3)	0.5	0.0
Na (cmolc dm^-3)	0.33	0.02
H+Al (cmolc dm^-3)	3.19	0.00
SB	1.53	1.84
CTC	4.72	1.84
V (%)	32.0	100
MO (g kg^-3)	12.0	9.0

Characteristics	Soil layers (m)
Characteristics	0.0-0.2	0.2-0.4	0.4-0.6	0.6-0.8	0.0-0.2	0.2-0.4	0.4-0.6	0.6-0.8
	Sandy soil				Sandy-clay soil
Ps (%)	36.47	31.49	35.49	35.97	43.93	44.49	48.33	45.56
BD (g cm^-3)	1.62	1.76	1.71	1.66	1.41	1.46	1.34	1.40
Sand (%)	84.65	84.80	84.90	83.90	51.40	47.60	51.40	47.00
Silt (%)	8.75	8.65	8.50	9.55	10.10	9.90	7.10	8.50
Clay (%)	6.60	6.55	6.60	6.55	38.50	42.50	41.50	44.50

Soil	Soil layer	θr (cm³cm^-3)	θs (cm³cm^-3)	α (cm^-1)	N	Ks (mm day^-1)
Sandy Soil	0.00-0.20	0.043	0.365	0.235	2.297	28.94
	0.20-0.40	0.037	0.315	0.612	1.605	81.77
	0.40-0.60	0.042	0.354	0.339	2.100	243.51
	0.60-0.80	0.030	0.360	0.598	1.761	243.51
Clay sandy	0.00-0.20	0.174	0.439	0.133	1.982	20.88
	0.20-0.40	0.198	0.483	0.105	2.338	58.72
	0.40-0.60	0.179	0.483	0.201	1.811	85.37
	0.60-0.80	0.189	0.456	0.128	1.841	85.37

Nitrate
Conc.	Sandy soil					Sandy clay soil
Conc.	R	KD	D (cm² h^-1)	P(e)	λ (cm)	R	KD	D (cm² h^-1)	P(e)	λ (cm)
3	1.33	0.07	59.48	13.02	1.72	1.63	0.20	92.19	5.02	4.47
6	1.40	0.08	73.70	10.93	2.05	1.68	0.22	76.18	6.34	3.54
9	1.68	0.14	43.80	17.36	1.29	1.71	0.23	64.23	7.16	3.13
Potassium
3	1.71	0.14	27.12	28.56	0.79	1.96	0.31	73.14	6.33	3.55
6	1.75	0.15	54.01	14.91	1.51	1.93	0.30	35.66	13.54	1.66
9	1.92	0.18	56.44	13.47	1.67	2.11	0.36	46.07	9.99	2.25

Hydrus parameter	P0 (cm)	P0pt	P2H	P2L	P3	r2H	r2L
	cm					cm.d^-1
Adopted value	-10	-25	-300	-1500	-8000	0.5	0.1

Brasil

Brasil

Simulações das concentrações de nitrato e potássio na solução do solo utilizando modelos paramétricos e o Hydrus-2D

Resumo

Soil	Model		R²	r	d	RMSE	Classif. of the Method (c = r x d)
Sandy Soil	Vogeleret al., (1996)	$C E_{w} = \frac{[C E_{a} + 2.5438 θ - 0.3730]}{-0.0871 θ + 0.7388}$	0.818	0.859	0.998	0.1677	Very good
Sandy Soil	Muñoz-Carpenaet al., (2005)	$C E_{w} = \frac{C E_{a} + 19.6472 θ^{2}}{- 41.3941 θ^{2} + 19.4093 θ}$	0.754	0.871	0.999	0.1537	Good
Sandy clay	Vogeleret al., (1996)	$C E_{w} = \frac{[C E_{a} - 0.0315 θ - 0.1111]}{-0.4152 θ + 0.4264}$	0.779	0.883	0.999	0.1538	Very good
Sandy clay	Muñoz-Carpenaet al., (2005)	$C E_{w} = \frac{C E_{a} - 1.0981 θ^{2}}{- 10.0371 θ^{2} + 4.3187 θ}$	0.655	0.830	0.999	0.1920	Good

Soil	Concentration g L^-1		Nitrate			Potassium
Soil	Concentration g L^-1	β	R²	d	RMSE	β	R²	d	RMSE
sand and soil	3.0	0.98	0.72	0.99	27.20	0.96	0.69	0.99	6.638
	6.0	0.87	0.67	0.99	32.17	0.88	0.72	0.99	7.89
	9.0	0.89	0.70	0.99	18.63	0.91	0.74	0.99	9.201
sand and clay	3.0	0.87	0.85	0.99	31.98	0.92	0.67	0.99	10.20
	6.0	0.94	0.72	0.99	23.54	0.84	0.71	0.99	16.24
	9.0	0.96	0.69	0.99	22.78	0.91	0.74	0.99	15.01

Soil	Model		R²	r	d	RMSE	Classif. of the Method (c = r x d)
			Adapted for linear type CEw-NO₃^- ratio
Sandy soil	Vogeler et al., (1996)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = [C E w - 0.0283] \frac{1}{0.0024}$	0.7581	0.867	0.9999	66.7749	Very good
Sandy soil	Muñoz-Carpena et al., (2005)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = [C E w - 0.0860] \frac{1}{0.0024}$	0.6158	0.785	0.9999	90.0959	Average
Sandy clay	Vogeler et al., (1996)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = [C E w - 0.0955] \frac{1}{0.0034}$	0.8568	0.926	0.9999	35.1413	Great
Sandy clay	Muñoz-Carpena et al., (2005)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = [C E w - 0.2126] \frac{1}{0.0027}$	0.8352	0.917	0.9995	37.6901	Very good
			Adapted for power type CEw-NO₃^- ratio
Sandy soil	Vogeler et al., (1996)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = {[\frac{1}{0.0038} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.9257}}$	0.7596	0.868	0.9999	69.1431	Very good
Sandy soil	Muñoz-Carpena et al., (2005)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = {[\frac{1}{0.0074} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.8242}}$	0.6212	0.786	0.9998	90.0767	Average
Sandy clay	Vogeler et al., (1996)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = {[\frac{1}{0.0108} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.7994}}$	0.8658	0.940	0.9998	32.5036	Great
Sandy clay	Muñoz-Carpena et al., (2005)	$N {O_{3}}^{-} = {[\frac{1}{0.0231} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.6623}}$	0.8202	0.909	0.9998	39.3716	Very good

Soil	Model		R²	r	d	RMSE	Classif. of the Method (c = r x d)
			Adapted for linear type CEw-K⁺ ratio
Sandy soil	Vogeleret al., (1996)	$K^{+} = [C E w - 0.0274] \frac{1}{0.0076}$	0.7134	0.840	0.9999	23.6440	Good
Sandy soil	Muñoz-Carpenaet al., (2005)	$K^{+} = [C E w - 0.0731] \frac{1}{0.0077}$	0.5580	0.747	0.9999	29.0023	Sufferable
Sandy clay	Vogeleret al., (1996)	$K^{+} = [C E w + 0.0191] \frac{1}{0.0059}$	0.6563	0.822	0.9994	41.4654	Good
Sandy clay	Muñoz-Carpenaet al., (2005)	$K^{+} = [C E w - 0.1637] \frac{1}{0.0039}$	0.6222	0.789	0.9999	43.4716	Average
			Adapted for power type CEw-K⁺ ratio
Sandy soil	Vogeleret al., (1996)	$K^{+} = {[\frac{1}{0.0121} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.9073}}$	0.7165	0.843	0.9999	23.5022	Good
Sandy soil	Muñoz-Carpenaet al., (2005)	$K^{+} = {[\frac{1}{0.0167} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.8529}}$	0.5614	0.749	0.9998	28.8929	Sufferable
Sandy clay	Vogeleret al., (1996)	$K^{+} = {[\frac{1}{0.0094} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.9041}}$	0.6430	0.827	0.9964	41.5647	Average
Sandy clay	Muñoz-Carpenaet al., (2005)	$K^{+} = {[\frac{1}{0.0173} C E w]}^{\frac{1}{0.7562}}$	0.6098	0.782	0.9998	44.1795	Average